Debates tend to favor the challengers but they would also benefit Reynolds

The calls for debate have been steadily increasing on social media, with Democratic challenger Fred Hubbell throwing down the proverbial gauntlet on Twitter this week. The Reynolds campaign on Tuesday accepted three debate invitations. Hubbell has also accepted three invitations. Only one of the invitations, in Sioux City, is accepted by both candidates on the same date.

Debates are a sensitive topic, especially for incumbents. Political insiders generally advise that perceived front-runners don’t debate, because debates are a natural equalizer. Public debate opens the leader up to scrutiny and attack, which is of particular concern to Reynolds since her two major-party competitors have little record to counterattack. Additionally, by making the jump to governor by virtue of Terry Branstad’s departure, Reynolds avoided any real debate or controversy and probably sees no benefit to seeking it now.

There are a lot of political reasons for Reynolds not to debate, and probably only one reason she should: It’s what’s best for Iowa.

All over America, debate is dying, and simmering hostility — or even open violence — is filling the vacuum created in its absence. Debate is a pressure release valve, a duel of champions whereby we send out conflicting ideas and argue their validity in order to ascertain truth in what has become a world of fake news and dubious statistics. If we can’t challenge, sharpen, and update our ideas, they tend to cement around us in unhealthy ways that cause us to see challenge to our philosophy as a personal affront.

And the reactions to the perceived affront seep from the average online comments section into our national psyche and freeze there, splitting off and marginalizing groups of people like ice splitting rocks off of a mountain.

While Iowa Democrats seem to be generally accepting of public forums, it’s a departure from the national trend. The dearth of debate has been particularly acute on the political Left, where the notion of hate speech and safe spaces has drowned out healthy debate from college campuses to the street protests.

Meanwhile, conservatives have been engaging the internet to spur debates the Left is generally unwilling to have, which in turn has given rise to syllogism-minded political icons like conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, Dr. Jordan Peterson, and scrappy college debate champ, Sen. Ted Cruz.

The sharp divergence was recently highlighted when Shapiro challenged Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to debate, and was rebuffed by the New York congressional candidate, who absurdly compared the invitation to a catcall.

Though it’s obviously politically advantageous for Hubbell to debate, kudos to him for pressing the issue, and for including Iowa’s newest major party by tagging Libertarian nominee Jake Porter in his post.

Porter is getting boxed out, however, and he has raised legitimate questions about whether and how Team Reynolds is involved. Even after Reynolds accepted one debate invitation in Sioux City, the host station went on to clarify in a now-buried correction that Reynolds had accepted a debate with Hubbell only, in an apparent effort to exclude Iowa’s newest major party.

The stations, for their part, have rescinded a debate invitation to Porter after he had already accepted — and tried to bury the Reynolds clarification. Porter says they claimed “upon review” he didn’t meet their previously unspecified debate criteria, though it’s not clear that any of the three major candidates meet the criteria cited.

The Libertarian Party has worked long and hard to reach major-party status in the state, and Iowans deserve the chance to hear a new vision that might significantly depart from the worn Republican/Democrat battle lines. There’s little doubt that the Libertarian emphasis on oft-ignored themes like criminal justice reform and Iowa government’s rampant corporate favoritism will shake up the tenor of the debate in a way that could help bring balance to the political force and engage a lot of less-conventional political activists who have long lived without any representation from their party.

But though it may stand against conventional wisdom, accepting more debate opportunities could also strengthen Reynolds herself. Though conservatives have generally been supportive of the governor thus far, she still has to earn a lot of trust. Debates can go a long way toward pushing her out from behind talking points and revealing more of the worldview and priorities that drive her decision-making.

But ultimately, debates aren’t about the candidates themselves, they’re about voters. And Iowa voters deserve to hear real debate around the real issues facing us. We need to see candidates challenge each other — hard — on their policy positions, and present competing visions for the future of the state.

Part of the decline of debate can certainly be laid at the feet of poor debate organization and format. Debate hosts have the chance to move away from soundbite-heavy moderative approaches and create a debate environment where the candidates have the chance to dig deeper and challenge each other’s underlying arguments. People tune in to be informed, and debates that allow candidates to spew their own campaign bullet points unchallenged aren’t helpful to anyone.

This is, after all, a job interview.

With the election only two months away, Iowans need to see our gubernatorial candidates side by side, dragged out from behind their campaign ads and spokespeople, and see what makes them tick.

After months of foot-dragging, it’s time for Gov. Reynolds to give Iowans the debate we deserve.

Joel Kurtinitis(Photo: Special to the Register)

Joel Kurtinitis of Des Moines is a homeschooler, conservative-libertarian writer and millennial political activist, who contributes regular columns to the Register. Follow Joel on Facebook at facebook.com/jkurtinitis or on Twitter @Joel_Kurtinitis.